|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 26 2017 07:17 ZeaL. wrote:
Everything becomes a lot more clear if you replace "Western" with "White".
Benevolent racism is always in style. We used to call it the "white man's burden" or "remembering your station".
|
On July 26 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 06:35 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 06:09 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 05:49 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 05:40 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 05:25 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 05:01 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Danglars appears to be stuck in some kind of loop.
While "Trump" = president
Print "but Hillary"
Does anyone know how to restore functionality to Danglars.exe? Kwark seems to have gotten stuck on Trump-Russia hysteria. Do we have some way to restore his critical thinking on the breadth of topics, including current events from the chair of the Judiciary committee? I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood the content of your post. It seemed to me that you were attempting to defend Trump's Russian meetings by pointing to the DNC and claiming that what other people who aren't President do somehow impacts whether what Trump did was ethical. Was that not what you were doing? Apologies, I just rather assumed that you'd consider further investigations into malfeasance in office/campaigns to be welcome in the fight against unethical (or others would say criminal) behavior. Not that everything not TrumpRussia = distraction from Trump Russia, that it seems to me you insinuate regularly. I'm a big fan of blind justice that doesn't matter if you're named Clinton or Trump, you'll be investigated. Here you see new allegations from the chairman of the judiciary committee and his recommendations, and if you've had a chance to read them, maybe you'll comment on the literal content of my post. I'm certainly not arguing that Trump, and only Trump, should be investigated or prosecuted for wrongdoing for the next four years. If you thought that that was my stance then I'm happy to correct you. I think justice should be blind and that people who commit crimes should be prosecuted, even if they're not currently the president. I see now that you were confused and genuinely believed that the left thinks that for the next four years all the rapists and murderers etc are off the hook because only Trump matters. Obviously if that were the case it's important to remind us that other people who aren't Trump still do things wrong. However, now that you understand that nobody is saying that only Trump should be investigated, do you see the issue with your post? If not, I'll spell it out to you. 1) Claiming that Trump is being treated unfairly because other people commit crimes does not, in fact, absolve him of anything. There is no way of getting from "other people did things that were wrong" to "Trump did nothing wrong". 2) The crimes of others aren't actually being ignored. 3) There is no way of getting from "the people objecting to this are hypocrites" to "Trump did nothing wrong". 4) Even if Trump was being treated differently, that still doesn't get you to "Trump did nothing wrong". Unfair treatment by the law does not absolve sins, if it did then we'd never lock up an African American. 5) The crimes of people who are not President, while still criminal, are not as important as the crimes of people who are President. Investigating the possible compromise of the President is a more pressing matter than investigating the possible compromise of someone without that kind of influence. Hopefully you'll read this and understand that "but Hillary" will never, ever get you to "Trump did nothing wrong". Complaining that the world is unfair is the act of a child or an idiot. The argument "I shouldn't get punished because she wasn't" is not valid. The argument that "I shouldn't get punished because you're hypocrites" is not valid. To get to "Trump did nothing wrong" you have to talk about Trump and what he did. Not Hillary. Not the DNC. Now that you understand I'm more than just "but Hillary," would you mind commenting on the matter at hand. I see a lot of talk about issues I see resolved in the Mueller, House, and Senate investigations of Russian interference. My post was on new allegations from the chair of the senate judiciary committee. I saw some reason to hope people that want Trump held accountable for anything revealed from the investigations to cheer Grassley on in these new revelations. Show that the powerful are still subject to the rule of law. If you show by word that you're only interested in Trump, and I mean look at your post without a word of the two-page letter, we're at an impasse now for discussing a current event. Am I misunderstanding what you were trying to express by It should come as a welcome development for people that thought the Trump Tower meeting was absolutely unethical. because it seems an awful lot like you were trying to talk about the Trump Tower meeting? See, you thought discussions with Danglars was a loop, and got caught in his flow chart instead. You're currently at the "Discussion isn't going in the direction I want" step, which leads to the "Read better, it's your fault I'm not understood clearly" retort. How very meta of you. You're quite familiar with "ignore all that, what about this!!" But every time I think you're going to debate, I read another contrafactual "That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there." But your claim to fame is hacking out summaries, like saying GH is "I know nothing about politics but I'm still better than all of you." Maybe one day you'll return to debating instead of wondering how you can butcher everybody's opinions and then attack the altered form of them. If you think my statement are counterfactual, you are more than welcome to dispute them. That would be how a debate starts. Like the bolded quote, which was questioned and responded to, and eventually reached a point of understanding, if not agreement. Almost like a discussion.
I wasn't quite expecting such an unironic defense of "that's a pretty dumb view of history you have here" style of debating, but you do exceed expectations. Maybe you and I can take as our launch pad "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Anyways, next time you want to debate merits instead of these meta "I don't like how Dang writes stuff," I'm all ears. Maybe start with the actual quoted tweet that Kwark went off the rails on ... Grassley's letter.
|
On July 26 2017 07:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Is "Western culture" even really a thing? The UK is largely different than the US, let alone the differences between West Virginia and New York, or New Hampshire and Scotland. It seems almost impossible to reconcile every single "Western" culture under a singe umbrella.
Pretty much, even sillier and Americentric to imagine we're a beacon of "Western Culture". Usually what people like xDaunt mean by "Western Culture" is "the good parts" of select groups of white people throughout history.
The atrocities and oppression perpetuated and institutionalized are an aberration of western culture rather than it's substance despite it's consistency and pervasiveness.
|
On July 26 2017 07:17 ZeaL. wrote:
Everything becomes a lot more clear if you replace "Western" with "White".
I mean, even if you say that, there are hundreds (thousands?) of cultural splits between groups/regions of white people. Many already being the mingling of other cultures.
Like, the US say, would the protection of white culture include or exclude New Orleans?
|
On July 26 2017 07:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 26 2017 07:07 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 07:05 Nevuk wrote:On July 26 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:
The new racism is just the old racism rebranded. Cultural criticism is the new benevolent racism. None of this shit is new, just the wrapper people put around it. So you don't think that there are legitimate differences between and amongst Western, Arab/Muslim, and Chinese cultures, and thus no grounds on which to make qualitative judgments about each? I feel like the US has more in common with Muslim culture than it does with Western European culture And why is that? I suspect that with a little introspection, you are going to find that your feelings are quite unfounded. Compare the GOP platform to Iran on issues like gun control, women's rights, religious freedoms and gay rights. Also their stances on critical thinking, education and sex ed. For a preview, the 2016 platform said critical thinking should not be taught because it leads to children questioning their parents.
More people need to fucking listen to George Carlin. Children need to be taught to question everything. The only person more ignorant than a hard conservative is someone who listens to one and believes them.
|
On July 26 2017 07:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Is "Western culture" even really a thing? The UK is largely different than the US, let alone the differences between West Virginia and New York, or New Hampshire and Scotland. It seems almost impossible to reconcile every single "Western" culture under a singe umbrella.
Of course it is. I already provided a good definition. You can parse local differences at regional and national levels, but there are universal values held by all under the umbrella of Western culture.
|
On July 26 2017 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:17 ZeaL. wrote:
Everything becomes a lot more clear if you replace "Western" with "White". I mean, even if you say that, there are hundreds (thousands?) of cultural splits between groups/regions of white people. Many already being the mingling of other cultures. Like, the US say, would the protection of white culture include or exclude New Orleans?
But that is to nuanced for the discussion people want to have. The "western culture" term is overly broad by design, created and used to enforce and Us vs The Others dynamic. You don't get to know what we are protecting, only that The Others are attempting to destroy it with their non-western culture.
|
On July 26 2017 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:17 ZeaL. wrote:
Everything becomes a lot more clear if you replace "Western" with "White". I mean, even if you say that, there are hundreds (thousands?) of cultural splits between groups/regions of white people. Many already being the mingling of other cultures. Like, the US say, would the protection of white culture include or exclude New Orleans?
Sure, at least the white people of New Orleans. They may do some quirky things, but they look and more or less act like most other white people. There's differences amongst regional groups but they're allwhite.
|
On July 26 2017 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Is "Western culture" even really a thing? The UK is largely different than the US, let alone the differences between West Virginia and New York, or New Hampshire and Scotland. It seems almost impossible to reconcile every single "Western" culture under a singe umbrella. Pretty much, even sillier and Americentric to imagine we're a beacon of "Western Culture". Usually what people like xDaunt mean by "Western Culture" is "the good parts" of select groups of white people throughout history. The atrocities and oppression perpetuated and institutionalized are an aberration of western culture rather than it's substance despite it's consistency and pervasiveness.
See, I think that many on the left inherently want to reject Western culture because it is predominantly the product of white men. This is utterly ridiculous on its face, of course. And like I already pointed out, the framework through which they attack Western culture is the product of Western culture.
|
United States44283 Posts
The good parts of our culture that are worth saving and propagating speak for themselves and win on their own merits. The bad parts, they die on their own merits too. Institutionalized homophobia used to be an entrenched part of western culture. Now it's disappearing. When conservatives decide that western culture needs defending to preserve it they're not talking about the good parts. Shit like the idea of the war against Christmas, for example. Christmas is becoming a secular holiday because it exists in a broadly secular society and is enjoyed by people of diverse faiths and cultural backgrounds. The war against Christmas is better understood to be the westernization of Christmas. Those who wish to fight back against this process do not do so out of a desire to defend western values.
|
On July 26 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2017 07:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Is "Western culture" even really a thing? The UK is largely different than the US, let alone the differences between West Virginia and New York, or New Hampshire and Scotland. It seems almost impossible to reconcile every single "Western" culture under a singe umbrella. Pretty much, even sillier and Americentric to imagine we're a beacon of "Western Culture". Usually what people like xDaunt mean by "Western Culture" is "the good parts" of select groups of white people throughout history. The atrocities and oppression perpetuated and institutionalized are an aberration of western culture rather than it's substance despite it's consistency and pervasiveness. See, I think that many on the left inherently want to reject Western culture because it is predominantly the product of white men. This is utterly ridiculous on its face, of course. And like I already pointed out, the framework through which they attack Western culture is the product of Western culture.
roflmao. Be clear, people have tried to explain the problematic nature of white supremacy to folks using every possible avenue. It just only accepts (barely at that) arguments formed in it's own culture.
|
On July 26 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2017 07:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Is "Western culture" even really a thing? The UK is largely different than the US, let alone the differences between West Virginia and New York, or New Hampshire and Scotland. It seems almost impossible to reconcile every single "Western" culture under a singe umbrella. Pretty much, even sillier and Americentric to imagine we're a beacon of "Western Culture". Usually what people like xDaunt mean by "Western Culture" is "the good parts" of select groups of white people throughout history. The atrocities and oppression perpetuated and institutionalized are an aberration of western culture rather than it's substance despite it's consistency and pervasiveness. See, I think that many on the left inherently want to reject Western culture because it is predominantly the product of white men. This is utterly ridiculous on its face, of course. And like I already pointed out, the framework through which they attack Western culture is the product of Western culture. roflmao. Be clear, people have tried to explain the problematic nature of white supremacy to folks using every possible avenue. It just only accepts (barely at that) arguments formed in it's own culture.
The people who conflate white supremacy with Western culture are mostly the Leftists who deride Western culture and the very small (and largely irrelevant) segment of people who are actual white supremacists. That should tell you all that you need to know about how good your argument is.
|
On July 26 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 06:35 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 26 2017 06:09 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 05:49 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 05:40 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 05:25 Danglars wrote:On July 26 2017 05:03 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2017 05:01 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Kwark seems to have gotten stuck on Trump-Russia hysteria. Do we have some way to restore his critical thinking on the breadth of topics, including current events from the chair of the Judiciary committee? I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood the content of your post. It seemed to me that you were attempting to defend Trump's Russian meetings by pointing to the DNC and claiming that what other people who aren't President do somehow impacts whether what Trump did was ethical. Was that not what you were doing? Apologies, I just rather assumed that you'd consider further investigations into malfeasance in office/campaigns to be welcome in the fight against unethical (or others would say criminal) behavior. Not that everything not TrumpRussia = distraction from Trump Russia, that it seems to me you insinuate regularly. I'm a big fan of blind justice that doesn't matter if you're named Clinton or Trump, you'll be investigated. Here you see new allegations from the chairman of the judiciary committee and his recommendations, and if you've had a chance to read them, maybe you'll comment on the literal content of my post. I'm certainly not arguing that Trump, and only Trump, should be investigated or prosecuted for wrongdoing for the next four years. If you thought that that was my stance then I'm happy to correct you. I think justice should be blind and that people who commit crimes should be prosecuted, even if they're not currently the president. I see now that you were confused and genuinely believed that the left thinks that for the next four years all the rapists and murderers etc are off the hook because only Trump matters. Obviously if that were the case it's important to remind us that other people who aren't Trump still do things wrong. However, now that you understand that nobody is saying that only Trump should be investigated, do you see the issue with your post? If not, I'll spell it out to you. 1) Claiming that Trump is being treated unfairly because other people commit crimes does not, in fact, absolve him of anything. There is no way of getting from "other people did things that were wrong" to "Trump did nothing wrong". 2) The crimes of others aren't actually being ignored. 3) There is no way of getting from "the people objecting to this are hypocrites" to "Trump did nothing wrong". 4) Even if Trump was being treated differently, that still doesn't get you to "Trump did nothing wrong". Unfair treatment by the law does not absolve sins, if it did then we'd never lock up an African American. 5) The crimes of people who are not President, while still criminal, are not as important as the crimes of people who are President. Investigating the possible compromise of the President is a more pressing matter than investigating the possible compromise of someone without that kind of influence. Hopefully you'll read this and understand that "but Hillary" will never, ever get you to "Trump did nothing wrong". Complaining that the world is unfair is the act of a child or an idiot. The argument "I shouldn't get punished because she wasn't" is not valid. The argument that "I shouldn't get punished because you're hypocrites" is not valid. To get to "Trump did nothing wrong" you have to talk about Trump and what he did. Not Hillary. Not the DNC. Now that you understand I'm more than just "but Hillary," would you mind commenting on the matter at hand. I see a lot of talk about issues I see resolved in the Mueller, House, and Senate investigations of Russian interference. My post was on new allegations from the chair of the senate judiciary committee. I saw some reason to hope people that want Trump held accountable for anything revealed from the investigations to cheer Grassley on in these new revelations. Show that the powerful are still subject to the rule of law. If you show by word that you're only interested in Trump, and I mean look at your post without a word of the two-page letter, we're at an impasse now for discussing a current event. Am I misunderstanding what you were trying to express by It should come as a welcome development for people that thought the Trump Tower meeting was absolutely unethical. because it seems an awful lot like you were trying to talk about the Trump Tower meeting? See, you thought discussions with Danglars was a loop, and got caught in his flow chart instead. You're currently at the "Discussion isn't going in the direction I want" step, which leads to the "Read better, it's your fault I'm not understood clearly" retort. How very meta of you. You're quite familiar with "ignore all that, what about this!!" But every time I think you're going to debate, I read another contrafactual "That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there." But your claim to fame is hacking out summaries, like saying GH is "I know nothing about politics but I'm still better than all of you." Maybe one day you'll return to debating instead of wondering how you can butcher everybody's opinions and then attack the altered form of them. If you think my statement are counterfactual, you are more than welcome to dispute them. That would be how a debate starts. Like the bolded quote, which was questioned and responded to, and eventually reached a point of understanding, if not agreement. Almost like a discussion. I wasn't quite expecting such an unironic defense of "that's a pretty dumb view of history you have here" style of debating, but you do exceed expectations. Maybe you and I can take as our launch pad "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Anyways, next time you want to debate merits instead of these meta "I don't like how Dang writes stuff," I'm all ears. Maybe start with the actual quoted tweet that Kwark went off the rails on ... Grassley's letter.
Well, how about some points that were already brought up but were never responded to:
1) What was the intended comparison between that letter and the Trump Tower meetings?
2) The letter is a Senate Committee request for an investigation into a person. Which of these questions have been substantiated, and which are being asked because there are no answers?
|
The thing that impresses me most about the "western culture" discussion is how it closely mirrors the "America Values" vs "communism" in the 1960-1970. Right down to the accusation of Marxism. Accusing civil rights leaders of being communists was just standard in that era. They wanted everyone to be treated equally, paid equally and workers right, and that is commie talk. But now it's that gay people want to be treated fairly and that is an assault on "western(christian) culture." Now we don't want people to be killed in the bathroom just because are transgender and this is some horrible assault our culture.
This shit never changes. We are just fighting the same fights our grandparents did, all over again. We punch up the language, but its all the garbage. We will never be free of this shit because we lack the self awareness to watch it rise up. We think we are different than our grandparents and parents, which is what they thought about themselves.
|
On July 26 2017 07:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Is "Western culture" even really a thing? The UK is largely different than the US, let alone the differences between West Virginia and New York, or New Hampshire and Scotland. It seems almost impossible to reconcile every single "Western" culture under a singe umbrella. Of course it is. I already provided a good definition. You can parse local differences at regional and national levels, but there are universal values held by all under the umbrella of Western culture.
Well, I would assume you're talking about the British Bill of Rights and Parliamentary system as the root of Western universal values, then.
But I'm pretty sure the US would balk at that.
|
Weird, to me it reads like it's talking about that christianity has been the engine that has shaped most of the good western cultural values. Specially since he mentions marxism, but nowadays you never know.
|
On July 26 2017 07:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:05 Nevuk wrote:On July 26 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:
The new racism is just the old racism rebranded. Cultural criticism is the new benevolent racism. None of this shit is new, just the wrapper people put around it. So you don't think that there are legitimate differences between and amongst Western, Arab/Muslim, and Chinese cultures, and thus no grounds on which to make qualitative judgments about each? I feel like the US has more in common with Muslim culture than it does with Western European culture And why is that? I suspect that with a little introspection, you are going to find that your feelings are quite unfounded.
Extremely high valuation of religion in society, religion being required to hold public office, deep taboos about sexuality, valuing religion over facts, replacing science with religion in education (thanks Texas), politicians constantly paying lip service to religion, etc. Mostly in how religious the US is.
|
On July 26 2017 07:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:27 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 07:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Is "Western culture" even really a thing? The UK is largely different than the US, let alone the differences between West Virginia and New York, or New Hampshire and Scotland. It seems almost impossible to reconcile every single "Western" culture under a singe umbrella. Of course it is. I already provided a good definition. You can parse local differences at regional and national levels, but there are universal values held by all under the umbrella of Western culture. Well, I would assume you're talking about the British Bill of Rights and Parliamentary system as the root of Western universal values, then. But I'm pretty sure the US would balk at that.
Those are British manifestations of Western Culture (both of which played a role in influencing Western culture), not Western culture itself.
|
On July 26 2017 07:47 Godwrath wrote:
Weird, to me it reads like it's talking about that christianity has been the engine that has shaped most of the good western cultural values. Specially since he mentions marxism, but nowadays you never know.
You are on point. You replace western with Christian and it all makes sense. The topic secret tactic of using coded language like "states rights" still applies today.
|
On July 26 2017 07:47 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 07:07 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 07:05 Nevuk wrote:On July 26 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:
The new racism is just the old racism rebranded. Cultural criticism is the new benevolent racism. None of this shit is new, just the wrapper people put around it. So you don't think that there are legitimate differences between and amongst Western, Arab/Muslim, and Chinese cultures, and thus no grounds on which to make qualitative judgments about each? I feel like the US has more in common with Muslim culture than it does with Western European culture And why is that? I suspect that with a little introspection, you are going to find that your feelings are quite unfounded. Extremely high valuation of religion in society, religion being required to hold public office, deep taboos about sexuality, valuing religion over facts, replacing science with religion in education (thanks Texas), politicians constantly paying lip service to religion, etc. Mostly in how religious the US is.
See, you're missing the forest for the trees. Let me reorient you to the defining characteristics of Western culture that I laid out last week:
Let's start with a broad definition of Western culture, which would include traditions of individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law (I'd throw Christianity in there as well, but I'm not sure that we need to go down that rabbit hole yet).
Which of those does Iran share?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
